Tulane to the Big East

[Benny B]

When colleges start getting sued over football-induced cuncussions the tied will turn. Basketball will rule and the Catholic Conference will shine. (wishful thinking).

Spelling errors aside, you are certainly on to something.  I am forecasting a major (8- to 9- figure) lawsuit involving a high-profile university (or universities) within the next 5 years... something that could go all the way to the SCOTUS.  When that happens and before the dust clears, the result will be one of the following:

1) There will be a mass exodus amongst colleges and universities away from the sport of football (mostly DIII, DII, & FCS, but some FBS "non-football" schools, e.g. Duke, Indiana, etc., will go as well).

2) Material changes in the rules (for safety reasons) will water down the collegiate-version of the sport, at which point the top talent coming out of HS will opt for the new "farm system" or D-league that the NFL will have to setup.

Eventually, college football - in its current form - will go away, but the end result may not even be within sight for another 15-20 years, and I'm not sure that college basketball can afford - or is even willing - to sit around and wait for its renaissance after football is dead.

[honkytonk]

Holy crap. That idea that football at all levels is going to cease to exist at some point in the future is laughable. Might as well erase Green Bay off the map. What shall we do with all the pro, college and high school stadiums that will be empty?

Concussions have always been around but are only getting attention now. If concussions get in the way of a multi-billion dollar industry, dont you think more medical research will figure it out?

Aaron Rodgers had concussion problems a few years ago. He was refitted with a new helmet and, despite leading the league in sacks, hasnt had one since. Throw a couple hundred million into concussion research and its a non-story some day. Afterall, municipalities, states and the federal government kind of like all of the tax dollars they receive from football (property, income, and sales tax). If health becomes an obstacle, it will be overcome.

[Groin_pull]

Maybe you shouldn't use social media anymore if you can't understand sarcasm.....  How do you dress yourself in the morning?

Sorry, mind reading is not one of my talents.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Marquette in Conference USA without D Wade from 95-96 (conference's inception): 8 years, 2 NCAA appearances (first 2 years, 0 in the last 6), one win (over Monmouth College).
To the extent you consider that success, Marquette will still have it post Big East/post Buzz. but it won't be anything like we have now.

We have a lot more going for us now then we did then.  A real basketball facility, large budget (yes, it will recede, but still be larger than what it was), etc.


Some are forgetting that there have been monster programs that have come from crappy conferences.  Memphis, UNLV, Gonzaga in basketball, Boise State in football.

Let's see where things shake out.  If MU is still committed to basketball, a lot of good things can happen and MU can do very well.  It's easier in a solid conference, but there are examples of schools doing extremely well without being tied to a top conference....if that is even what happens which we don't know yet.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Spelling errors aside, you are certainly on to something.  I am forecasting a major (8- to 9- figure) lawsuit involving a high-profile university (or universities) within the next 5 years... something that could go all the way to the SCOTUS.  When that happens and before the dust clears, the result will be one of the following:

1) There will be a mass exodus amongst colleges and universities away from the sport of football (mostly DIII, DII, & FCS, but some FBS "non-football" schools, e.g. Duke, Indiana, etc., will go as well).

2) Material changes in the rules (for safety reasons) will water down the collegiate-version of the sport, at which point the top talent coming out of HS will opt for the new "farm system" or D-league that the NFL will have to setup.

Eventually, college football - in its current form - will go away, but the end result may not even be within sight for another 15-20 years, and I'm not sure that college basketball can afford - or is even willing - to sit around and wait for its renaissance after football is dead.

There is so much power and money associated with college football that I don't think you will see this happen.  There are some states like Nebraska, Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc, where college football is so important they will get it figured out.  Too many powerful people are not going to let scenario 1 or 2 happen.  It's a dangerous sport, there will be requirements of participants to knowlingly except the risks, maybe insurance policies and such will be allowed en masse, but the sport is not going away or allowed to be stripped in any meaningful fashion.  In my opinion.

[Groin_pull]

Agree. Way too much money involved. However, I do expect fewer participants over the years. More and more parents are steering their sons away from football. So yes, the talent level in college and the NFL will drop, but not enough to kill the beast.

[Benny B]

There is so much power and money associated with college football that I don't think you will see this happen.  There are some states like Nebraska, Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc, where college football is so important they will get it figured out.  Too many powerful people are not going to let scenario 1 or 2 happen.  It's a dangerous sport, there will be requirements of participants to knowlingly except the risks, maybe insurance policies and such will be allowed en masse, but the sport is not going away or allowed to be stripped in any meaningful fashion.  In my opinion.

Too much money and power is a double-edged sword... Find me a plaintiff's attorney who wouldn't hunt that whale.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Too much money and power is a double-edged sword... Find me a plaintiff's attorney who wouldn't hunt that whale.

I can find you a plaintiff's attorney to tell you a swap meet is dangerous or feeding fish can be harmful to your health.  Plenty of those folks around.  

History buffs might recall that there was pressure to end football at the turn of the century because of the brutality involved, until Teddy Roosevelt stepped in and saved it.  Many rule changes were made, as you hinted could be coming next.  I would not be surprised if that isn't the case, but I don't think they will strip it down so much as to lose the draw to the game from a player or spectator point of view. 


http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football


"In life, as in a football game," he wrote, "the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard; don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard!" In 1903, the president told an audience, "I believe in rough games and in rough, manly sports. I do not feel any particular sympathy for the person who gets battered about a good deal so long as it is not fatal."
--Teddy Roosevelt

[JTBMU7]

I think the hoops schools from the big east should approach the A10 about membership. They have a tourney in Brooklyn, multiple NCAA tournament programs, and could easily expand. Right now they have 16, add MU, GTown, St Johns, PC, Dpaul, SHU and Nova, then look for one more (SLU?) and have a true hoops conf. Scheduleng would be nuts but everyone will have 20 teams at some point. I think that could fetch some decent cash just on inventory of games alone. Not to memtion none of those schools have a viable football program that could threaten to leave anytime soon. Wishful thinking but this would be the best case IMHO at this point.

[Aughnanure]

Apparently the Big East was turned down by BYU and Air Force. That can't bode well for keeping Boise State and SDSU on board. Is the Big East being turned down by western schools now?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball....e r-fish----byu

[The Equalizer]

I think the hoops schools from the big east should approach the A10 about membership. They have a tourney in Brooklyn, multiple NCAA tournament programs, and could easily expand. Right now they have 16, add MU, GTown, St Johns, PC, Dpaul, SHU and Nova, then look for one more (SLU?) and have a true hoops conf. Scheduleng would be nuts but everyone will have 20 teams at some point. I think that could fetch some decent cash just on inventory of games alone. Not to memtion none of those schools have a viable football program that could threaten to leave anytime soon. Wishful thinking but this would be the best case IMHO at this point.

SLU is already part of the A10.

Temple has football and will be leaving next year for the Big East. Charlotte starts playing football and leaves next year for CUSA.

So its really a 14 team league. 

What I find hard to understand is why a bunch of teams we couldn't wait to get away from (Xavier & Butler from the MCC, Dayton from the GMC, St. Louis from CUSA) and another bunch we never wanted anything to do with (the rest of the A10) will now welcome us with open arms because our own conference strategy has turned to crap.   

Perhaps we should come up with a new nickname--the Prodigal Sons.

[AirPunches]

I think the hoops schools from the big east should approach the A10 about membership. They have a tourney in Brooklyn, multiple NCAA tournament programs, and could easily expand. Right now they have 16, add MU, GTown, St Johns, PC, Dpaul, SHU and Nova, then look for one more (SLU?) and have a true hoops conf. Scheduleng would be nuts but everyone will have 20 teams at some point. I think that could fetch some decent cash just on inventory of games alone. Not to memtion none of those schools have a viable football program that could threaten to leave anytime soon. Wishful thinking but this would be the best case IMHO at this point.

That might be an ok move for some of the bball only schools but MU, G'town, and Nova (although they are trending downwards) deserve better. MU has proven they belong on the big stage and you cant say the same about SHU, Providence, Depaul, and St. Johns. A-10 is a wannabe conference. Definition of a MID-MAJOR. Do they some have decent programs? Yes, but they are littered with crummy programs too.

Your scenario is the most realistic option though, and it sucks. Not the fact that we are in the A-10 but the fact that we are no longer connected to any of the Big East schools. You watch, after a few years they will quietly slip out the back door to the ACC and leave us with Depaul in the A-10.

That's why I think that this basketball conference started by the Big East schools isn't happening right now. Gtown, Nova, and maybe St. Johns all have aspirations for the ACC, so why lock into a long term deal and take the time to start a whole new conference when the ACC is still a real possibility.

So, I agree that this is definitely a possibility for MU but I disagree that no programs would be a threat to leave and that this is the best case scenario at this point. Best case still remains that the hoops schools keep the big east name, tourney at msg, and add two or three more good programs. I think we will know if this is a legit possibility very soon.

[4everwarriors]

Crean won't have let all this sheet go down if he was still at MU.

[Benny B]

Crean won't have let all this sheet go down if he was still at MU.

That just made my morning.  Thanks, 4ever.

[chapman]

Spelling errors aside, you are certainly on to something.  I am forecasting a major (8- to 9- figure) lawsuit involving a high-profile university (or universities) within the next 5 years... something that could go all the way to the SCOTUS.  When that happens and before the dust clears, the result will be one of the following:

1) There will be a mass exodus amongst colleges and universities away from the sport of football (mostly DIII, DII, & FCS, but some FBS "non-football" schools, e.g. Duke, Indiana, etc., will go as well).

2) Material changes in the rules (for safety reasons) will water down the collegiate-version of the sport, at which point the top talent coming out of HS will opt for the new "farm system" or D-league that the NFL will have to setup.

Eventually, college football - in its current form - will go away, but the end result may not even be within sight for another 15-20 years, and I'm not sure that college basketball can afford - or is even willing - to sit around and wait for its renaissance after football is dead.

A good article about how this all went down 100 years ago when football was deemed too unsafe (killing 18 people in one year unsafe).  The attempt to save football changed the game completely (forward passes), and the committee to come up with new, safer rules became the NCAA.  Perhaps history repeating itself in some ways.  We may see some changes in the coming years, but Football will be fine.  Nobody's going to abandon a sport when it's to the point that it could be repackaged it into a completely different game and people would complain but continue to eat it up.   

http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football

[ChicosBailBonds]

That just made my morning.  Thanks, 4ever.

The simple things in life

[Benny B]

A good article about how this all went down 100 years ago when football was deemed too unsafe (killing 18 people in one year unsafe).  The attempt to save football changed the game completely (forward passes), and the committee to come up with new, safer rules became the NCAA.  Perhaps history repeating itself in some ways.  We may see some changes in the coming years, but Football will be fine.  Nobody's going to abandon a sport when it's to the point that it could be repackaged it into a completely different game and people would complain but continue to eat it up.   

http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football

The flaw in such logic is twofold: 1) you're assuming that what people find attractive about football today is similar to what people found attractive about football 100 years ago, and 2) our society is much more litigious today than it was even 20 (let alone 100) years ago.  Rule changes may have made the sport "safer" decades ago, but the game has evolved to the point where player safety is again being overlooked in favor of exciting, bone-crushing hits to the head.

Take NASCAR for instance;they add all these safety features to the cars, yet drivers are still putting their lives at risk every time they start the engine.  For the sake of argument, let's say that the only way to make the sport (I use that term loosely) safe is to make the drivers go no faster than 75 MPH.  You think if they did that, the millions of NASCAR fans would still pour their money, time, and lives into the sport at the same clip?  Of course not, but that doesn't mean NASCAR goes away... it simply exists on a much different plane (a much less profitable one) than it does today.

I don't think it's a secret that the most effective way to make football "safe" involves eliminating contact above the shoulders, chop blocks, and blindside hits.  "But Benny, those are already penalized/fine-able offenses."  Exactly... but yet, they still happen, and further, during almost every game at that.  And the leagues, colleges, administrators, owners and fans all tolerate it.  Why?  Because that's exactly what people want to see.  So the keepers of the game willingly allow the dangerous activity to occur behind the curtain of yellow flags and fines... which is fine for the professionals who are are being compensated and mostly aware of the risks.  College athletes - who typically have a more invulnerable attitude than professionals do - take the same risks, but the money goes right to the "promoter"

In other words, the business model of college football can be summarized as follows: individuals and institutions profiting directly and indirectly from putting people's health and lives at risk.  The only reason college football hasn't gone down yet is because nobody has been willing to take on the beast... but you better believe that there are at least a few dozen lawyers (gray-haired attorneys, not law school grads) across the country who are gathering evidence, data, testimony, hospital bills, etc. in preparation for when that day comes.  I don't know what the triggering event is going to be, but when the floodgates open, major changes will have to be made to the game , not just the rules.

[Dawson Rental]

The flaw in such logic is twofold: 1) you're assuming that what people find attractive about football today is similar to what people found attractive about football 100 years ago, and 2) our society is much more litigious today than it was even 20 (let alone 100) years ago.  Rule changes may have made the sport "safer" decades ago, but the game has evolved to the point where player safety is again being overlooked in favor of exciting, bone-crushing hits to the head.

Take NASCAR for instance;they add all these safety features to the cars, yet drivers are still putting their lives at risk every time they start the engine.  For the sake of argument, let's say that the only way to make the sport (I use that term loosely) safe is to make the drivers go no faster than 75 MPH.  You think if they did that, the millions of NASCAR fans would still pour their money, time, and lives into the sport at the same clip?  Of course not, but that doesn't mean NASCAR goes away... it simply exists on a much different plane (a much less profitable one) than it does today.

I don't think it's a secret that the most effective way to make football "safe" involves eliminating contact above the shoulders, chop blocks, and blindside hits.  "But Benny, those are already penalized/fine-able offenses."  Exactly... but yet, they still happen, and further, during almost every game at that.  And the leagues, colleges, administrators, owners and fans all tolerate it.  Why?  Because that's exactly what people want to see.  So the keepers of the game willingly allow the dangerous activity to occur behind the curtain of yellow flags and fines... which is fine for the professionals who are are being compensated and mostly aware of the risks.  College athletes - who typically have a more invulnerable attitude than professionals do - take the same risks, but the money goes right to the "promoter"

In other words, the business model of college football can be summarized as follows: individuals and institutions profiting directly and indirectly from putting people's health and lives at risk.  The only reason college football hasn't gone down yet is because nobody has been willing to take on the beast... but you better believe that there are at least a few dozen lawyers (gray-haired attorneys, not law school grads) across the country who are gathering evidence, data, testimony, hospital bills, etc. in preparation for when that day comes.  I don't know what the triggering event is going to be, but when the floodgates open, major changes will have to be made to the game , not just the rules.

And you haven't even broached the subject of the people whose health and lives are being put at risk are not being compensated beyond what a trust of Universities got together and decided they should receive.  All the money coming in will definitely have an impact there, IMHO.  That will have serious implications for the bottom line at football playing schools.

[Pakuni]

What I find hard to understand is why a bunch of teams we couldn't wait to get away from (Xavier & Butler from the MCC, Dayton from the GMC, St. Louis from CUSA) and another bunch we never wanted anything to do with (the rest of the A10) will now welcome us with open arms because our own conference strategy has turned to crap.   

Perhaps we should come up with a new nickname--the Prodigal Sons.

Not sure whether you're being obtuse or rhetorical, but the reason those schools would welcome MU, DePaul, Nova, G'Town, etc., is the same reason the Big 10 welcomes Rutgers and Maryland ..... $$$$.

You don't honestly believe Dayton or St. Louis or Xavier is going to turn down the potential for additional revenue today because they're still butthurt over something that happened 20 years ago, do you?

[Dawson Rental]

Not sure whether you're being obtuse or rhetorical, but the reason those schools would welcome MU, DePaul, Nova, G'Town, etc., is the same reason the Big 10 welcomes Rutgers and Maryland ..... $$$$.

You don't honestly believe Dayton or St. Louis or Xavier is going to turn down the potential for additional revenue today because they're still butthurt over something that happened 20 years ago, do you?

Of course they would.  Just like Marquette would turn down an ACC invite now based on principle because the ACC raided the Big East.

[Pakuni]

Of course they would.  Just like Marquette would turn down an ACC invite now based on principle because the ACC raided the Big East.

Of course.
And, tired and wounded by years of rejection, the Big 10 would never welcome Notre Dame as a full member. Ever.

[The Equalizer]

Not sure whether you're being obtuse or rhetorical, but the reason those schools would welcome MU, DePaul, Nova, G'Town, etc., is the same reason the Big 10 welcomes Rutgers and Maryland ..... $$$$.

You don't honestly believe Dayton or St. Louis or Xavier is going to turn down the potential for additional revenue today because they're still butthurt over something that happened 20 years ago, do you?

The reason Big Ten the Big Ten welcomes Maryland and Rutgers is to gain more households in new markets for their Big Ten Network.

I don't think thats even close to what might happen with the A10.

What others are proposing via an expanded A10 is different becuase it is simply adding more teams to increase the value of the overall television contract--ignoring the fact that it will then have to be split with the teams added.

For example, If 14 A10 teams generate $14 million/year, and adding 7 more teams can generate $21 million/year, yes, the conference has generated more $$$$, but each team still gets its $1 million. 

And to get to that, the current A10 teams have to dilute theire appearances on television--after all, there is no additional supply of Saturday afternoons during the basektball season.  So their "game of the week" now must feature 21 teams over the season instead of 14.
 
Now, if you're going to argue that the Big East teams are worth more--say $2 million each, then the argument is reversed--why would the Big East teams want to join a league where their contributions are diluted 33% just to be part of the A10?   We could generate $14 million among the 7 teams alone, but the payout would be $1.33 million when combined with the A10.  Why not just form a smaller 7-team league (a la the GMC), which would enable old-style home-and-home against every team plus a ton of flexiblity for real revenue-generating non-conference games, plus keep $2 million/team?

Where your analogy falls apart is that there is no national interest in basketball games as there is in Football.  The Big Ten wants the NYC market because they think there will be reasonably strong demand for Wisconsin/Michigan or Penn State/Nebraska--but they need a local team to get clearance.

Nobody can credibly claim there is Chicago- or Milwaukee-based interest for a Dayton/Xavier or Richmond/VCU.  So the valuation is based solely on what the local team can bring--there's no synergistic elevation of ratings simply by the A10 going from 14 teams to 21.  its solely proportional based on the local interest in the teams added.

[Pakuni]

The reason Big Ten the Big Ten welcomes Maryland and Rutgers is to gain more households in new markets for their Big Ten Network.

I don't think thats even close to what might happen with the A10.

What others are proposing via an expanded A10 is different becuase it is simply adding more teams to increase the value of the overall television contract--ignoring the fact that it will then have to be split with the teams added.

For example, If 14 A10 teams generate $14 million/year, and adding 7 more teams can generate $21 million/year, yes, the conference has generated more $$$$, but each team still gets its $1 million. 

And to get to that, the current A10 teams have to dilute theire appearances on television--after all, there is no additional supply of Saturday afternoons during the basektball season.  So their "game of the week" now must feature 21 teams over the season instead of 14.
 
Now, if you're going to argue that the Big East teams are worth more--say $2 million each, then the argument is reversed--why would the Big East teams want to join a league where their contributions are diluted 33% just to be part of the A10?   We could generate $14 million among the 7 teams alone, but the payout would be $1.33 million when combined with the A10.  Why not just form a smaller 7-team league (a la the GMC), which would enable old-style home-and-home against every team plus a ton of flexiblity for real revenue-generating non-conference games, plus keep $2 million/team?

Where your analogy falls apart is that there is no national interest in basketball games as there is in Football.  The Big Ten wants the NYC market because they think there will be reasonably strong demand for Wisconsin/Michigan or Penn State/Nebraska--but they need a local team to get clearance.

Nobody can credibly claim there is Chicago- or Milwaukee-based interest for a Dayton/Xavier or Richmond/VCU.  So the valuation is based solely on what the local team can bring--there's no synergistic elevation of ratings simply by the A10 going from 14 teams to 21.  its solely proportional based on the local interest in the teams added.

Too many poor speculations and assumptions here to cover them all, but there are several worth pointing out:

- You falsely argue that adding the likes of G'town, Villanova, Marquette and St. John's would "dilute" A-10 television appearances. The reality is, the addition of those teams would make for a more attractive television package and, therefore, more television appearances for everyone. The notion that there's only a "game of the week" to be divvied up among all programs is silly. A minimum of 75 Big East games are on national TV this year. i'm pretty certain the season doesn't last 75 weeks.
And with the CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network both eager for programming, there will be no shortage of television opportunities in the future ... especially for a league that will have at least 11 programs in the nation's top 25 markets.

- A seven-team conference won't be worth anything close to $2 million a team because it's too small/not exposed to enough viewers. Networks want to be in as many markets as possible, one of the major drivers of the current expansion craze. If "old-style" scheduling and non-conference flexibility mattered one iota to anyone, or produced any real revenues, conferences wouldn't be sitting at 14 teams and growing.

The bottom line here is you seem to admit that adding hoops only Big East teams would make the A-10 TV contract more valuable, and the only downside is supposed loss of games on TV by individual members because there's apparently only one weekly appearance to be had for the entire conference. My guess is a) that loss of appearances doesn't happen as more and more games will be televised every year and b) most programs, especially the lower-tier ones, would sacrifice an appearance or two - as unlikely as that would be  - for the benefit the likes of G'Town, MU, St. John's, etc. would bring.

Ultimately, though, expanding the A-10 to 21 is less than ideal. The best option remains swiping their better programs.

[Benny B]

Ultimately, though, expanding the A-10 to 21 is less than ideal. The best option remains swiping their better programs.

[Pakuni]

Benny B no swiping.
Benny B no swiping.
Benny B no swiping.